A fast lens with stabilization is the best of both worlds. For one, just because you can shoot wide open doesn't at all mean you want to. A 135 f/1.8 is going to have a razor-thin depth of field. There'd be plenty of times you'd want to stop down to at least f/8 to have all of your subject in focus. If you're in Sunny f/16 light, you can easily get hand-holdable f/8 exposures at 135mm. But with stabilization you could step indoors, keep your aperture at f/8, boost the ISO to 3200, and still have a fast enough shutter for portraiture even if not action. That opens up an awful lot of doors.

A fast lens with stabilization is the best of both worlds. For one, just because you can shoot wide open doesn't at all mean you want to. A 135 f/1.8 is going to have a razor-thin depth of field. There'd be plenty of times you'd want to stop down to at least f/8 to have all of your subject in focus. If you're in Sunny f/16 light, you can easily get hand-holdable f/8 exposures at 135mm. But with stabilization you could step indoors, keep your aperture at f/8, boost the ISO to 3200, and still have a fast enough shutter for portraiture even if not action. That opens up an awful lot of doors.

Cheers,

b&

Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the need of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

But seems like its more easy to add IS/OS to a telephoto-lens. So there is a little chance to get that but i am not really confident.

BTW: The canon 135 is even a bit faster than f/2. Could be that the Sigma will be only 1.9 and they are cheating a bit...

Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the need of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

A 135mm f/1.8 lens has the same size physical aperture as a 200mm f/2.8 lens. I'm pretty sure this lens would be cheaper than Sigma's $1,300 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, seeing how it's a much simpler design. I'd also guess that it'd be cheaper than Canon's $1,000 135mm f/2 L, because that tends to be how Sigma rolls. I'd personally guess somewhere in the $800 range.

Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the need of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

A 135mm f/1.8 lens has the same size physical aperture as a 200mm f/2.8 lens. I'm pretty sure this lens would be cheaper than Sigma's $1,300 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, seeing how it's a much simpler design. I'd also guess that it'd be cheaper than Canon's $1,000 135mm f/2 L, because that tends to be how Sigma rolls. I'd personally guess somewhere in the $800 range.

Cheers,

b&

Sigma's 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro is faster than Canon's equivalent, and has OS, and is more expensive. It might be a precedent for this lens's pricing. My guess is about $1,300.

Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception. With the 135L, you would be shooting at 1/125 to avoid camera shake. With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter). If it's as sharp as the 135, this could be very interesting indeed !

Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the need of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

A 135mm f/1.8 lens has the same size physical aperture as a 200mm f/2.8 lens. I'm pretty sure this lens would be cheaper than Sigma's $1,300 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, seeing how it's a much simpler design. I'd also guess that it'd be cheaper than Canon's $1,000 135mm f/2 L, because that tends to be how Sigma rolls. I'd personally guess somewhere in the $800 range.

Cheers,

b&

Sigma's 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro is faster than Canon's equivalent, and has OS, and is more expensive. It might be a precedent for this lens's pricing. My guess is about $1,300.

I also wouldn't be surprised. It would be faster than the Canikon equivalent, and with OS. I guess something around 1100$ at launch.

For me, as a FF + crop shooter, this lens could replace the purchase of a 300mm f/4 - if it takes TC well. Overall a lot of value if one lens is both a fast portrait prime and a sharp stabilized tele.

Go Sigma! This will have to a pretty fabulous lens, though, as the 135L is easily my favorite current lens from an IQ perspective. Still, the thought of having a good stabilizer in a lens like that would be huge.

I'd love to see a great 50mm f/1.4 from them, too. I'm not even using a modern 50mm right now, as it isn't a huge need for me. I use either a 55mm f/1.8 SMC Takumar M42 lens or a Helios 58mm f/2 lens when I am shooting portraits/narrow DOF shots in that range and just use my Tamron 24-70 VC for most times. Every current 50mm lens for a Canon mount has one quirk or another.

Exciting times. I really, really love that Sigma and Tamron are actually producing some lenses that are pushing Canon and Nikon right now. That will help all of us.

I wouldn't create a lens in a segment that has a very popular, successful option- - canons 135/2- but do what you gotta do. if they come out with a 24 1.4, ill scream hallelujah. Canon prices are just too...ouch.